Sayonara

good point. people these days don't seem to understand that By that logic strings and dark matter do not exist, so there's no point discussing them. QED.

I suspect he was referring to the number of weapons they could produce from their cargo.

No, lying signs are. This is massively off-topic.

Maybe we have trading standards commissions whose remit is to prevent terror tactics in commerce.

You're not in the UK. That may have something to do with it.

I'm thinking the "be warned that you'll explode" style signs aren't.

Yes, you can eliminate possibilities by running an investigation, but in the cases where the critical witnesses are crispy bites and any suspect phone is a puddle of dried goop there's not a lot you can do to establish if it was in use or not. [edit] In other words, the only conclusions you can really expect to get from such an investigation are "no mobile was in use" and "unknown". Seeing as petrol stations all over the UK have warning signs about mobile use, I'm going to assume there is a reason for them to be there that isn't "some spam told us they were bad". I don't see a poorly conducted trial on a limited set of conditions by a television program with an "appeal to the middle layer" name to be anything approaching conclusive proof, and I think lives are far too precious to be casually informing people that they should potentially put themselves and others in a great deal of danger.

A) A sample group of one is no good to anyone, even if you had explained what you were saying. B) String theory is no more in a position to elbow out tachyons than tachyons are in a position to elbow out string theory.

Thing is, it's not so much "disproving" it as it is "failing to prove it". The range of conditions found at petrol stations and the range of mobile technologies available make the ideal study somewhat complicated. Well, Shell would deny it, wouldn't they? In this case however Shell actually denied that a specific chain mail referred to actual events. Their assertion that no mobile phone ever caused an explosion cannot be anything other than an assurance - how would they know?

If I search for "tachyon problem" on google, I am just going to get a load of fiction. You however describe tachyons as a problem to be got rid of, so then it follows that you must have specific examples in mind.

I think "time" is worst, "exists" is second, and "everything" is least worst (as in, most context-sensitive).

On what scale?

Well, they may exist, but not necessarily to us. Oh god. We're moving on from defining "everything" to defining "exists". Women and children first.

DreamLord has a boyyyyyfriend DreamLord has a boyyyyyfriend

Well, my point was that if we are unaware of it and cannot interact with it, then for all intents and purposes it does not exist to us, so there's no particular reason it include it in our definition of "everything that exists".

Any other examples? Preferably ones that don't involve string, but theories that can be tested with repeatable results.

Can you elaborate on that at all?

Perhaps required is not the best word. I seem to recall MrL saying they were a convenient solution to something.

What kind of monitor is it?

And it's not like they could just download a copy of the Nuker's Handbook and place an order for parts with bigbooms.net.

How many kinds of phone did they test with?

If we cannot interact with, observe or otherwise detect something then it may as well not exist to us. This is one way we could consider another universe to be exempt from our idea of what "everything" actually is. Or of course you could simply rename the multiverse as the universe, and call our particular matter/energy/space/force collection "the cosmos" instead. Whichever. The point was that we were considering two separate MESF collections that do not usually interact. Getting hung up on the name for it is a bit pointless.

First, I still don't see what the USA's behaviour towards the UN has to do with the Peacekeepers. Can you not make the distinction between the two? Second, as I already said, the Peacekeepers are NOT the same as an army. Their mandate is quite different. Comparing their performance on mission to that of the American armed forces (for example) is like comparing apples to oranges and deciding they aren't orangey enough. The Somalia situation went downhill because of the complex situation, not because the Peacekeepers were "stumbling over themselves". http://www.un.org/Depts/DPKO/Missions/unosomi.htm If memory serves it was the US forces who got smacked around, not the UN.

I was under the impression they were a required consequence of said theory.

What's this "we"? You clearly have no clue what budullewraagh and I have been talking about, and just scanned the last couple of replies.